[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: (ITS#6943) segfault in rwmmap in 2.4.25

> In regard to: Re: (ITS#6943) segfault in rwmmap in 2.4.25, Pierangelo...:
>>> At the time of the search, the very last thing that was logged was
>>> May 17 17:03:03 server2 slapd[5168]: conn=28588 op=3 SRCH
>>> base="cn=groups,dc=ndsu,dc=nodak,dc=edu" scope=2 deref=0
>>> filter="(&(?objectClass=posixGroup)(?objectClass=apple-group)(objectClass=extensibleObject)(|(?apple-group-nestedgroup=ABCDEFAB-CDEF-ABCD-EFAB-CDEF0000001B)))"
>>> May 17 17:03:03 server2 slapd[5168]: conn=28588 op=3 SRCH attr=cn
>>> apple-generateduid gidNumber apple-group-realname ttl sambaSID rid
>>> primaryGroupID apple-keyword apple-group-nestedgroup
>>> I'll happily provide any details that I've mistakenly left out or that
>>> would
>>> aid
>>> in debugging the issue.
>>> The issue certainly could be caused by an error in my rwmRewriteRule,
>>> but I
>>> imagine that slapd shouldn't segfault even if my rwmRewriteRule is
>>> wrong.
>> Yes (I believe), and yes.  I believe the mapping is being applied to an
>> attribute that is not explicitly defined in the schema, but rather
>> proxied or
>> somehow treated as undefined.  For this reason, the matching rule
>> pointer is
>> NULL.  Can you check the definition of "apple-group-nestedgroup", if
>> any?  Of
>> course, slapo-rwm should not crash on something like this.
> Thank you Pierangelo.
> We don't have any definition for apple-group-nestedgroup in any of the
> schemas that I have loaded.  It's not something we support.  We're also
> not doing any proxying.  Note also that the search base it's using
> (cn=groups,dc=ndsu,dc=nodak,dc=edu) isn't valid.  So, it's some Apple
> system on campus that someone has set up to query our LDAP tree, looking
> for things that the Mac OS X expects to find, but that we don't have or
> support.
> One thing that confuses me a little -- I set the rwm-rewriteContext to
> "bindDN", which I perhaps incorrectly believed meant that rewriting would
> only be done for authenticated binds (i.e. not anonymous binds), and
> this client did not authenticate.  I was under the mistaken impression
> that
> rwm shouldn't even be called in cases like this.  I don't (currently) need
> to
> rewrite searches or results from searches, only the bind credentials, for
> when we eventually enable support for ldap authentication.
> Does that answer your question?  Would it be helpful to see either my
> original slapd.conf or the slapd-config that results from the conversion?

Yes, either would be useful.  Thanks, p.